Tuesday, November 10, 2020

11102020 - Wayne County Judge Tracy Green - MI Judicial Tenure Commission Formal Complaint Against Green: Cover-Up Of Son's/Gary Davis-Headd's Abuse Of Her Grandsons

 




During his  (Gary Davis-Headd's) sentencing in October of 2019, his first wife, Choree Bressler,  told the court he used his mother's connections to protect him. 
( "Commission wants judge who lied for child abuser son be disbarred" . FOX 2 News - Detroit. August 05, 2022.)
































Wayne County judge's son sentenced to 4-10 years of 'brutal' child abuse she allegedly concealed 
FOX 2 News - Detroit
October 16, 2019




The son of a Wayne County judge was sentenced to more than four years in prison after he was convicted of beating his children, which his mother, Wayne County Judge Tracy green, allegedly helped cover up.

Gary Davis-Headd was convicted last month of two felony charges of child abuse of his children. This was five months after his children and his current wife talked to FOX 2 and said that Judge Green helped cover up the abuse with makeup.

Davis-Headd's sentencing ended a sad saga for his children. 

"My dad would tell her about a bruise I had or something, and she would put make-up on it because we had to go to school and stuff, and she didn't want people to see," his older son said in May.

Judge Green said she never put makeup on bruises and called it 'utterly preposterous'.

"It just didn't happen," Green said.

After Elrick's story broke, Wayne County Chief Judge Timothy Kenny decided Judge Green would not hear abuse and neglect cases until further notice. 

In the meantime, Davis-Headd lost custody of his children. He was convicted of abusing his wife and then went on trial for allegedly abusing his children, where he was convicted of that as well.

Judge Green was reassigned from family court to criminal court, the same courthouse where her son was convicted. She watched as her son's most recent wife - who says he tried to kill her - asked another judge to show no mercy.

"I pray that the system will keep him locked away as long as possible," she said. "I thought for sure that I wouldn't be able to see my kids again. He decided to put both his hands around my throat, cutting off my air as I continuously begged him to stop."

Choree Bressler, his first wife, blamed Judge Green for her son's actions. Even though Green was not a judge when that abuse took place, she said he used her legal connections to protect him.

"Their father beat them brutally for years without fear of any repercussions because of who their mother is. Judge Tracy Green created and raised a monster. She knowingly allowed her son to wreak terror, abuse and fear in the lives of many women and her grandchildren," Bressler said.

Judge Green has declined to address the allegations, citing judicial rules that limit a judge's ability to comment on legal matters. 

Davis-Headd told Judge Paul John Cusick that his mother raised him right and that he used a belt to beat his children to "correct them".

"I'm sorry that my children have been so hurt by my actions, I'm sorry that they have been convinced that my my goal was anything but to correct their behavior so that I could raise good children that they grow up to be good people," he said.

His son wasn't buying it. He said that he's heard his dad say that before.

"I do hope he gets jail time because he deserves it. I know he thinks he didn't do anything because he's pretty good at convincing himself he didn't do anything," his son said.

Judge Cusick didn't seem to be swayed by it either. He gave him the recommended sentence of four to ten years in prison - and a message.

"Fathers are supposed to make sure that their children are protected from harm, are protected from having to suffer pain - that's basically the number one obligation of a father," Judge Cusick said.

Judge Green has been hearing criminal cases involving adult offenders for a couple of months. It's unclear whether she'll ever return to hearing cases involving abuse and neglect of children. 















Commission authorizes Formal Complaint No. 103 as to Hon. Tracy E. Green, 3rd Circuit Court
Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission
November 10, 2020
DETROIT, MI, November 10, 2020 - Pursuant to MCR 9.224, the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission has authorized the filing of Formal Complaint No. 103 as to Hon. Tracy E. Green, 3rd Circuit Court, Wayne County, Michigan. The Commission has also petitioned the Michigan Supreme Court to appoint a master to preside over a hearing on the complaint. 
















Pending Formal Complaints and Recent Supreme Court Decisions
Complaint No. 103, Hon. Tracy E. Green, 3rd Circuit Court
Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission
November 10, 2020


The formal complaint may be accessed by clicking here. 

The Commission has extended the period for respondent to answer the formal complaint to December 31, 2020. The order granting the extension may be accessed by clicking here.

Judge Green's answer to the formal complaint may be accessed by clicking here. 

The Michigan Supreme Court's order appointing a Master in the proceedings may be accessed by clicking here. 

The Master's scheduling order regarding the formal hearing may be accessed by clicking here. 

The hearing time for May 27, 2021, has been revised to 10:30 a.m. (from the previously scheduled time of 9:30); the Master's order reflecting that change may be accessed by clicking here. 

The formal hearing starting on May 27, 2021 at 10:30 a.m., will be available to view live on the Judicial Tenure Commission's YouTube channel at the following link. 

The formal proceedings set for June 14, 2021, in FC 103, have been adjourned by the Master. No proceedings will be held on that date. A revised scheduling order will be forthcoming.

Hon. Betty Widgeon, Master in the formal proceedings, has issued an amended scheduling order. The order may be accessed by clicking here. 

Hon. Betty Widgeon, Master in the formal proceedings, has issued a third amended scheduling order regarding the formal hearing in this matter. The order may be accessed by clicking here. 

Hon. Betty Widgeon, Master in the formal proceedings, has issued a fourth amended scheduling order. The order sets additional hearing dates on August 23, August 26, and September 17 (from 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. each day). The proceedings can be viewed via the Commission's YouTube channel at the link listed above. The order may be accessed by clicking here. 

Hon. Betty Widgeon, Master in the formal proceedings, has canceled the proceedings scheduled for August 26, 2021. The next hearing date is September 17, 2021.

Hon. Betty Widgeon, Master in the formal proceedings, has added September 22 and September 27 as hearing dates in this matter (in addition to September 17, which had already been scheduled). The proceedings will be available to view on the Commission's YouTube channel using the link above. The amended scheduling order adding the dates may be accessed by clicking here. 

The formal proceedings scheduled for Friday, September 17, 2021, will start at 1:00 p.m. (as opposed to 9:30, as previously scheduled). The proceedings will be broadcast on the Commission's YouTube channel. 

By order of the Master, the formal proceedings scheduled for Wednesday, September 22 have been canceled. The hearing will continue at 9:30 a.m. on September 24, September 27 (as set in an earlier order), and on October 13, 2021. The order may be accessed by clicking here. The hearing will continue to be held remotely, and will be available to view on the Commission's YouTube channel. 

By order of the Master, the formal proceedings in this matter will continue on October 29, 2021. The hearing will be in person but will not be accessible to the public (due to courthouse restrictions). The public can view the hearing on the Commission's YouTube channel.  In addition, an additional formal hearing date has been reserved, if needed. That day is November 19, 2021. Those proceedings will be livestreamed as well.

The Master in these proceedings has issued an order allowing Disciplinary Counsel to file an amended complaint, which may be accessed by clicking here. 

Respondent has filed an answer to the amended complaint (including affirmative and other defenses), which can be accessed by clicking here. 

The closing arguments in this matter will be held on December 1, 2021. The arguments will be broadcast on the Commission's YouTube channel. 

During the formal hearing, some testimony was taken under a separate record that the Master subsequently determined should be part of the record. The video for those proceedings was not on the Commission's YouTube channel, so the transcripts of those separate records are included here to insure the public has access to those proceedings. The applicable portions of the record may be accessed by clicking on the following: 

The oral argument before the Commission will be on Monday, June 13 at 10:00 a.m. and can be viewed at the following link. 

Disciplinary Counsel's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law may be accessed by clicking here. Appendix A to the document may be accessed by clicking here.  Appendix B to the document may be accessed by clicking here. 

Respondent's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law may be accessed by clicking here. 

Disciplinary Counsel's reply to respondent's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law may be accessed by clicking here. 

Respondent's response to Disciplinary Counsel's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law may be accessed by clicking here. 

The Master's report may be accessed by clicking here.

A notice of hearing as to the oral argument before the Commission may be accessed by clicking here. Please be advised that permission for film and electronic media coverage should be requested by June 8, 2022, using the form available using the form available by clicking here. After completion, the form should be emailed to the Commission at:  judicialtenure@courts.mi.gov 

Disciplinary Counsel's brief in support of and in opposition to the Master's report may be accessed by clicking here. 

Respondent's objections to the Master's report may be accessed by clicking here. 

Disciplinary Counsel's response brief may be accessed by clicking here. 

Respondent's response brief may be accessed by clicking here. 

The Commission's Decision and Recommendation may be accessed by clicking here. 
________________________________________________________________________

Commission Recommendations
Pending Before the Michigan Supreme Court

(The Commission's Decisions and Recommendations in the respective cases may be accessed above.)

The Commission has issued its Decision and Recommendation in FC 103 as to Hon. Tracy Green, 3rd Circuit Court. Proceedings will continue before the Supreme Court pursuant to MCR 9.251 and 9.252.















Wayne County judge accused of hiding evidence her son abused her grandsons
Detroit Free Press
November 10, 2020



A Wayne County 3rd Circuit Court judge is facing misconduct accusations from the  Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission that she concealed evidence her two young grandsons were being abused.

A 12-page complaint detailed the concerns and gives Tracy Green — who has been a lawyer since 1997 and a judge for almost two years — two weeks to respond to the allegations in the document.

The complaint said, among other things, that Green knew her son, Gary Davis Headd, "had been abusive to his then-wife" for years and abused his sons, spanking them with a belt and slapping one hard enough to leave a hand print on his face.

The Free Press called Green's office Tuesday and was told she was not available. 

In the complaint, however, Green responded to tenure commission requests to comment that none of her grandchildren ever told her they had been abused, and she denied that they had been hit.

Headd was convicted about a year ago of two felony counts of child abuse and lost custody of his children.

At the time, then-FOX 2 journalist M.L. Elrick, who now works for the Free Press, reported the children said their father beat them and that Green had helped cover up the abuse.

"My dad would tell her about a bruise I had or something," one of the boys said, "and she would put makeup on it because we had to go to school and stuff, and she didn't want people to see."

Green, however, testified in family court that her grandsons were lying. 

At the time she denied the child's account, calling it "utterly preposterous," adding that the incident "just didn't happen" and she "didn't put makeup on any bruises, conceal any abuse." 

The complaint said that Green knew her son was "a very 'stern' and 'strong' " disciplinarian. The grandsons told her they were spanked by their father many times. One of them also showed her bruises on his face, neck, arms, legs and back.

Green also knew that from 2015 to 2018, her son was under a court order not to use corporal punishment on his children, but did not seem to make an effort to stop the abuse or report it.

Once, when one of the boys were about 8 years old, the complaint said, Green used makeup to hide an injury under his eye, suggesting that not only did she know about physical abuse, but helped to conceal it. 















Judicial Tenure Commission charges judge with covering up abuse of grandchildren
FOX 2 News - Detroit
November 10, 2020



FOX 2 - Last year Gary Davis Headd was found guilty of abusing of his two sons.

Now Wayne County Family Court Judge Tracy Green, his mother has been charged by the state's Judicial Tenure Commission of covering it up.

"My dad would tell her about a bruise I had or something, and she would put makeup on it because we had to go to school and she didn't want people to see," said one of the children to FOX 2.

ML Elrick who worked for FOX 2 at the time, broke the story. According to the complaint, Green knew her son had been abusive to his then-wife for years and that he often abused his sons by spanking, hitting them with a belt, and slapping one hard enough to leave a handprint on his face.

The commission said her grandchildren even told her about it - which is why she tried to cover it up.

But in the complaint, Judge Green denied knowing of any abuse, just as she did to FOX 2 last September.

"I didn't put any makeup on to conceal any abuse that is utterly preposterous," Green said.

Judge Green, who had worked as an attorney for two decades was elected as a circuit court family judge in 2018 - but because of the allegations was moved to the criminal division.

She has two weeks to answer to this complaint.

FOX 2 reached out to Green's office after business hours and could not reach her. She has maintained that she did not know about the abuse.















State panel charges Wayne County judge Tracy Green with misconduct
The Detroit News
November 10, 2020



Judicial misconduct charges have been filed against Wayne County Circuit Court Judge Tracy Green, the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission announced Tuesday.

Green, who has been on the court's bench since early last year, is charged with several counts of judicial misconduct for an alleged coverup in connection with a case involving her son, Gary Davis- Headd, who was charged and convicted last year in a case involving his two sons.

The commission said between July 2014 and June 2018, she "was aware that on multiple occasions her son had been abusive to his then-wife, Katy Davis-Headd, by slapping her and choking her."

The judge, the complaint adds, "was aware that her son was prone to abusive behavior" and was using strong and stern punishment as well as using a belt on his two sons, the judge's two grandsons, who were under 11.

The 12-page complaint alleges that the judge was made aware of the abuse by the children and that she saw marks on one of the boy's face that he told her had been inflicted by his father.

The commission alleges that "at least one time in 2016 or 2017, the judge saw her son hit the child on his face and chest while the judge was in the kitchen of her home."

The judge, according to the complaint, was aware from 2015 through 2018 that her son was under a court order not to use corporal punishment on the children. The judge is accused of trying to "conceal" some of the abuse of the boys by putting makeup on their bruises, according to the complaint.

The commission alleges that "on four occasions" Green saw injuries on one of the boy's face and that the child told her they were inflicted by his father.

Green is accused of making false statements about her knowledge of the abuse to the commission when asked about it. In the judge's answer  Nov. 21, 2019, to the  commission’s questions, she stated, “I was, and remain, unaware of any alleged ‘abuse’ of my grandchildren by my son,” according to the complaint.

Green's son was convicted of two counts of second-degree felony child abuse last year in Wayne County Circuit Court.

Green could not be reached for comment Tuesday. 

The judge has maintained that she has "done nothing wrong."

"I am not on trial here," the judge said during a parental termination hearing involving the boys in March 2019. "I stand by my previous testimony, and I pray my reputation for integrity and decency will speak for me."

Elected in November 2018 to the circuit court's family division, Green is now serving in the criminal division. She was an attorney for more than two decades. She is known for her work in reuniting parents with their children who were under foster care.















Judicial Tenure Commission charges Wayne County Judge Tracy Green with misconduct
Click On Detroit
Nov 11, 2020


















Complaint filed against Wayne County judge accused of covering up abuse of her grandsons
MLive
Nov. 11, 2020



DETROIT -- The Judicial Tenure Commission filed a complaint Tuesday against Wayne County Circuit Judge Tracy Green, alleging Green lied under oath about knowledge of her son’s abuse of her two grandsons. The commission oversees the judiciary in Michigan and alleges Green was aware her son was hitting his two sons with a belt and slapping them.

According to the Associated Press, the commission believes Green attempted to cover up the abuse and told commission staff that she was did not know of any abuse “under any circumstances.” Green also denied any knowledge when testifying in juvenile court on the matter, the AP said.

Green allegedly tried to cover up the abuse by using makeup to hide the bruises, according to the complaint. The commission believes Green was aware of the abuse prior to becoming a judge in 2019.

Green’s son, Gary Davis-Headd Jr., was convicted of second-degree child abuse in 2019 and sentenced to four years in prison for abusing his then 8 and 10-year-old sons.

When allegations of the cover up were first made last year, Green was reassigned from handling family court cases. Green could not be reached for comment by the AP.















Commission extended period for Judge Tracy Green to answer formal complaint
Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission
December 03, 2020
The Commission has extended the period for respondent to answer the formal complaint to 
December 31, 2020. 















Judge Tracy Green files answer to FC 103
Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission
December 31, 2020
DETROIT, MI, January 1, 2021- Hon. Tracy E. Green, Third Circuit Court, Wayne County, Michigan, has filed her answer and affirmative defenses to the complaint in FC 103. 















Michigan Supreme Court appoints Master in FC 103, as to Judge Tracy E. Green
Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission
March 09, 2021
DETROIT, MI, March 9, 2021- The Michigan Supreme Court has appointed Hon. Betty Widgeon as the Master in FC No. 103, pending as to Hon. Tracy E. Green, 3rd Circuit Court. 
















Judge Tracy Green - Complaint No. 103
Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission
May 04, 2021

05042021--MI-Judicial-Tenure-Commission--Judge-Tracy-Green--Order-Amending-Start-Time-For-05272021-Hearing
















Suspect on lam since sentence 
Woman kidnapped after man didn't show at jail in prior case
Detroit News, The (MI)
May 14, 2021 
Detroit – The man sought by police in connection with the kidnapping of a woman Tuesday at a Warren Subway restaurant was not in police custody when he was sentenced to up to 15 years in prison for domestic violence last week.

Wayne County Circuit Judge Tracy Green sentenced Adrian Brown in a remote court hearing on May 5 to 58 months to 15 years in prison for unlawful imprisonment. Brown was also given one to two years for interfering with electronic communications and a fine for a domestic violence charge.

Brown, 31, was convicted on the charges in March of last year, but was under house arrest and wearing a tether as a condition of his release from jail in a separate firearms case.

He had been on the run for several days by the time police say he forced a 27-year-old woman into his car Tuesday at the restaurant Tuesday.

Green gave Brown one day to report to jail, Maria Miller, spokeswoman for Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy, wrote in an email to The Detroit News.

But instead of reporting to jail on May 6, Brown cut his tether at about 6:30 p.m., the prosecutor's office said.

On Friday, two days after Brown's sentencing and a day after he was supposed to report to jail, Green issued a bench warrant for his arrest, court records show.

He had not been arrested as of Thursday.

The 27-year-old woman in the reported kidnapping at the Subway was found safe late Tuesday and is not the same woman involved in the 2019 domestic violence case, according to prosecutors.

Police said the 27-year-old woman who reported being abducted Tuesday and Brown had dated. He implied he had a handgun and forced her into his vehicle at about 2:15 p.m. Tuesday, police said.

After Brown was convicted in March 2020 in the domestic violence case, Wayne County Assistant Prosecutor Matthew Makepeace asked Green to remand Brown to jail, "as he had been convicted of an assaultive crime," Miller told The News.

Green declined, the prosecutor's office said, and gave Brown a bond of $30,000 or 10%. In September that bond was reduced further and he was placed on house arrest to await sentencing. Due to delays caused by the pandemic the sentencing didn't happen until this month.

Brown is facing charges in three other cases, according to court records. In one, he faces four felony charges in connection with a Detroit incident: Larceny of a firearm, two counts of felony firearm and firearm possession by a felon.

At his April 9 arraignment in that case, Brown was given a $100,000 bond by 36th District Court Magistrate Joseph Boyer.

But District Judge Kenneth King, who was assigned the case, told The News Wednesday he felt the original bond was "heavy-handed."

"I have people charged with intent to murder with lesser bonds than that," King said.

At Brown's April 19 probable cause conference, King lowered Brown's bond to $100,000/10%.

On April 21, Brown posted the $10,000 bond and was released on a tether with two conditions: he could only leave his home to go to work and he could not possess any weapons.

"The purpose of bond is not for punishment," King said. "The purpose of bond is to ensure that the person shows up for trial, that they're not a danger to their community."

He added: "I think that was a pretty substantial bond I gave, even for those charges."

On Wednesday, Brown did not appear for a preliminary examination before King that would have determined if he should be ordered to stand trial on the firearms charges. King raised his bond from $10,000 to $50,000 and issued a bench warrant for Brown's arrest.

Brown has two other cases pending before Green in circuit court, court records show.

He's due in her courtroom on June 9 for a pair of pretrial hearings.

In one case, he's charged with two counts of resisting and obstructing police.

In the other, he's charged with two counts of cocaine possession under 25 grams and one count of resisting and obstructing police.

Green did not respond to multiple requests for comment.




Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, September 27, 2020

09272020 - OIDV Victims: Not protected under Color Of Law and Federal Civil Rights Statutes









The vast majority of the law enforcement officers in this country perform their very difficult jobs with respect for their communities and in compliance with the law. Even so, there are incidents in which this is not the case. This document outlines the laws enforced by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) that address police misconduct and explains how you can file a complaint with DOJ if you believe that your rights have been violated.

Federal laws that address police misconduct include both criminal and civil statutes. These laws cover the actions of State, county, and local officers, including those who work in prisons and jails. In addition, several laws also apply to Federal law enforcement officers. The laws protect all persons in the United States (citizens and non-citizens).

Each law DOJ enforces is briefly discussed below. In DOJ investigations, whether criminal or civil, the person whose rights have been reportedly violated is referred to as a victim and often is an important witness. DOJ generally will inform the victim of the results of the investigation, but we do not act as the victim's lawyer and cannot give legal advice as a private attorney could. 

The various offices within DOJ that are responsible for enforcing the laws discussed in this document coordinate their investigative and enforcement efforts where appropriate. For example, a complaint received by one office may be referred to another if necessary to address the allegations. In addition, more than one office may investigate the same complaint if the allegations raise issues covered by more than one statute. 

What is the difference between criminal and civil cases? 
Criminal and civil laws are different. Criminal cases usually are investigated and handled separately from civil cases, even if they concern the same incident. In a criminal case, DOJ brings a case against the accused person; in a civil case, DOJ brings the case (either through litigation or an administrative investigation) against a governmental authority or law enforcement agency. In a criminal case, the evidence must establish proof "beyond a reasonable doubt," while in civil cases the proof need only satisfy the lower standard of a "preponderance of the evidence." Finally, in criminal cases, DOJ seeks to punish a wrongdoer for past misconduct through imprisonment or other sanction. In civil cases, DOJ seeks to correct a law enforcement agency's policies and practices that fostered the misconduct and, where appropriate, may require individual relief for the victim(s). 

FEDERAL CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT 
It is a crime for one or more persons acting under color of law willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242). "Under color of law" means that the person doing the act is using power given to him or her by a governmental agency (local, State, or Federal). A law enforcement officer acts "under color of law" even if he or she is exceeding his or her rightful power. The types of law enforcement misconduct covered by these laws include excessive force, sexual assault, intentional false arrests, theft, or the intentional fabrication of evidence resulting in a loss of liberty to another. Enforcement of these provisions does not require that any racial, religious, or other discriminatory motive existed.  What remedies are available under these laws? These are criminal statutes. Violations of these laws are punishable by fine and/or imprisonment. There is no private right of action under these statutes; in other words, these are not the legal provisions under which you would file a lawsuit on your own.

FEDERAL CIVIL ENFORCEMENT
"Police Misconduct Provision"
This law makes it unlawful for State or local law enforcement officers to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. (34 U.S.C. § 12601). The types of conduct covered by this law can include, among other things, excessive force, discriminatory harassment, false arrests, coercive sexual conduct, and unlawful stops, searches or arrests. In order to be covered by this law, the misconduct must constitute a "pattern or practice" -- it may not simply be an isolated incident. The DOJ must be able to show in court that the agency has an unlawful policy or that the incidents constituted a pattern of unlawful conduct. However, unlike the other civil laws discussed below, DOJ does not have to show that discrimination has occurred in order to prove a pattern or practice of misconduct. What remedies are available under this law? The remedies available under this law do not provide for individual monetary relief for the victims of the misconduct. Rather, they provide for injunctive relief, such as orders to end the misconduct and changes in the agency's policies and procedures that resulted in or allowed the misconduct. There is no private right of action under this law; only DOJ may file suit for violations of the Police Misconduct Provision. 

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the "OJP Program Statute"
Together, these laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, and religion by State and local law enforcement agencies that receive financial assistance from DOJ. (42 U.S.C. § 2000d, et seq. and 34 U.S.C. § 10228). These laws prohibit both individual instances and patterns or practices of discriminatory misconduct, i.e., treating a person differently because of race, color, national origin, sex, or religion. The misconduct covered by Title VI and the OJP (Office of Justice Programs) Program Statute includes, for example, harassment or use of racial slurs, discriminatory arrests, discriminatory traffic stops, coercive sexual conduct, retaliation for filing a complaint with DOJ or participating in the investigation, discriminatory use of force, or refusal by the agency to respond to complaints alleging discriminatory treatment by its officers. What remedies are available under these laws? DOJ may seek changes in the policies and procedures of the agency to remedy violations of these laws and, if appropriate, also seek individual remedial relief for the victim(s). Individuals also have a private right of action in certain circumstances under Title VI and under the OJP Program Statute; in other words, you may file a lawsuit yourself under these laws. However, you must first exhaust your administrative remedies by filing a complaint with DOJ if you wish to file in Federal Court under the OJP Program Statute.


HOW TO FILE A COMPLAINT WITH DOJ
Criminal Enforcement
If you would like to file a complaint alleging a violation of the criminal laws discussed above, you may contact the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which is responsible for investigating allegations of criminal deprivations of civil rights. You may also contact the United States Attorney's Office (USAO) in your district. The FBI and USAOs have offices in most major cities and have publically-listed phone numbers.

You can find your local office here:

In addition, you may send a written complaint to:
Criminal Section 
Civil Rights Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., PHB 
Washington, D.C. 20530

Civil Enforcement
If you would like to file a complaint alleging violations of the Police Misconduct Statute, Title VI, or the OJP Program Statute, you may send a written complaint to: 
Federal Coordination and Compliance Section
Civil Rights Division
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., NWB
Washington, D.C. 20530
Complaint forms, available in 12 languages, can be found at: https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/complaint-process. 

You may also call the Federal Coordination and Compliance Section's toll-free number for information and a complaint form, at (888) TITLE-06 (848-5306) (voice and TDD).


How do I file a complaint about the conduct of a law enforcement officer from a Federal agency?
If you believe that you are a victim of criminal misconduct by a Federal law enforcement officer (such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement; the FBI; Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; Drug Enforcement Agency, United States Marshals Service, or the Border Patrol), you should follow the procedures discussed above concerning how to file a complaint alleging violations of the criminal laws we enforce. If you believe that you have been subjected by a Federal law enforcement officer to the type of misconduct discussed above concerning "Federal Civil Enforcement," you may send a complaint to the Federal Coordination and Compliance Section, at the address listed above. That office will forward your complaint to the appropriate agency and office.

What information should I include in a complaint to DOJ?
Your complaint, whether alleging violations of the criminal or civil laws listed in this document, should include the following information:
  • Your name, address, and telephone number(s).
  • The name(s) of the law enforcement agency (or agencies) involved.
  • A description of the conduct you believe violates one of the laws discussed above, with as many details as possible. You should include: the dates and times of incident(s); any injuries sustained; the name(s), or other identifying information, of the officer(s) involved (if possible); and any other examples of similar misconduct. 
  • The names and telephone numbers of witnesses who can support your allegations.
If you believe that the misconduct is based on your race, color, national origin, sex, religion, or disability, please identify the basis and explain what led you to believe that you were treated in a discriminatory manner (i.e., differently from persons of another race, sex, etc.).

Reproduction of this document is encouraged.
This flyer is not intended to be a final agency action, has no legally binding effect, and has no force or effect of law.  This document may be rescinded or modified in the Department’s complete discretion, in accordance with applicable laws.  This flyer does not establish legally enforceable rights or responsibilities beyond what is required by the terms of the applicable statutes, regulations, or binding judicial precedent.  For more information, see "Memorandum for All Components: Prohibition of Improper Guidance Documents," from Attorney General Jefferson B. Sessions III, November 16, 2017.

















SUMMARY:
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.















Investigations and Prosecutions
About the Law Enforcement Misconduct Statute
Physical Assault
Sexual Misconduct
Deliberate Indifference to a Serious Medical Condition or a Substantial Risk of Harm
Failure to Intervene

INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS
The Department of Justice ("The Department") vigorously investigates and, where the evidence permits, prosecutes allegations of Constitutional violations by law enforcement officers. The Department's investigations most often involve alleged uses of excessive force, but also include sexual misconduct, theft, false arrest, and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs or a substantial risk of harm to a person in custody. These cases typically involve police officers, jailers, correctional officers, probation officers, prosecutors, judges, and other federal, state, or local law enforcement officials. The Department's authority extends to all law enforcement conduct, regardless of whether an officer is on or off duty, so long as he/she is acting, or claiming to act, in his/her official capacity.

In addition to Constitutional violations, the Department prosecutes law enforcement officers for related instances of obstruction of justice. This includes attempting to prevent a victim or witnesses from reporting the misconduct, lying to federal, state, or local officials during the course of an investigation into the potential misconduct, writing a false report to conceal misconduct, or fabricating evidence.

The principles of federal prosecution, set forth in the United States Attorneys' Manual ("USAM"), require federal prosecutors to meet two standards in order to seek an indictment.

First, the government must be convinced that the potential defendant committed a federal crime. Second, the government must also conclude that the government would be likely to prevail at trial, where the government must prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. See USAM § 9-27.220.[1]
___________
[1] The USAM provides only internal Department of Justice guidance. It is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party in any matter civil or criminal. Nor are any limitations hereby placed on otherwise lawful litigative prerogatives of the Department of Justice. https://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-27000-principles-federal-prosecution


ABOUT THE LAW ENFORCEMENT MISCONDUCT STATUTE
The federal criminal statute that enforces Constitutional limits on conduct by law enforcement officers is 18 U.S.C. § 242. Section 242 provides in relevant part:
"Whoever, under color of any law, …willfully subjects any person…to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States [shall be guilty of a crime]."
Section 242 is intended to "protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and furnish the means of their vindication." Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 98 (1945) (quoting legislative history).

To prove a violation of § 242, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the defendant deprived a victim of a right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, (2) that the defendant acted willfully, and (3) that the defendant was acting under color of law. A violation of § 242 is a felony if one of the following conditions is met: the defendant used, attempted to use, or threatened to use a dangerous weapon, explosive or fire; the victim suffered bodily injury; the defendant's actions included attempted murder, kidnapping or attempted kidnapping, aggravated sexual abuse or attempted aggravated sexual abuse, or the crime resulted in death. Otherwise, the violation is a misdemeanor.

Establishing the intent behind a Constitutional violation requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the law enforcement officer knew what he/she was doing was wrong and against the law and decided to do it anyway. Therefore, even if the government can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual's Constitutional right was violated, § 242 requires that the government prove that the law enforcement officer intended to engage in the unlawful conduct and that he/she did so knowing that it was wrong or unlawful. See Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 101-107 (1945). Mistake, fear, misperception, or even poor judgment does not constitute willful conduct prosecutable under the statute.

Physical Assault
In cases of physical assault, such as allegations of excessive force by an officer, the underlying Constitutional right at issue depends on the custodial status of the victim. If the victim has just been arrested or detained, or if the victim is being held in jail but has not yet been convicted, the government must, in most cases, prove that that the law enforcement officer used more force than is reasonably necessary to arrest or gain control of the victim. This is an objective standard dependent on what a reasonable officer would do under the same circumstances. "The 'reasonableness' of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight." Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396-97 (1989).

If the victim is a convicted prisoner, the government must show that the law enforcement officer used physical force to punish , retaliate against, an inmate, or otherwise cause harm to the prisoner, rather than to protect the officer or others from harm or to maintain order in the facility. See Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986). 

Sexual Misconduct
Law enforcement officers who engage in nonconsensual sexual contact with persons in their custody deprive those persons of liberty without due process of law, which includes the right to bodily integrity. The Department investigates and prosecutes instances of nonconsensual sexual misconduct committed by patrol officers, federal and state probation officers, wardens, and corrections officers, among others. Sexual misconduct includes, but is not limited to, sexual assault without consent (rape), sexual contact procured by force, threat of force or coercion, and unwanted or gratuitous sexual contact such as touching or groping.

To prove that a law enforcement officer violated a victim's right to bodily integrity, the government must prove that the victim did not consent to the defendant's actions. Prosecutors can establish lack of consent or submission by showing that the defendant officer used either force or coercion to overcome the victim's will. It is not necessary to prove that the defendant used actual violence against the victim. Coercion may exist if a victim is told that an officer will bring false charges or cause the victim to suffer unjust punishment.

Deliberate Indifference to a Serious Medical Condition or a Substantial Risk of Harm
Section 242 prohibits a law enforcement officer from acting with deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of harm to persons in custody. Therefore, an officer cannot deliberately ignore a serious medical condition of or risk of serious harm (such as a risk that an inmate will be assaulted by other inmates or officers) to a person in custody.  To prove deliberate indifference, the government must prove that the victim faced a substantial risk of serious harm; that the officer had actual knowledge of the risk of harm; and that the officer failed to take reasonable measures to abate it.

Failure to Intervene
An officer who purposefully allows a fellow officer to violate a victim's Constitutional rights may be prosecuted for failure to intervene to stop the Constitutional violation. To prosecute such an officer, the government must show that the defendant officer was aware of the Constitutional violation, had an opportunity to intervene, and chose not to do so. This charge is often appropriate for supervisory officers who observe uses of excessive force without stopping them, or who actively encourage uses of excessive force but do not directly participate in them.

















This statute makes it unlawful to willfully cause bodily injury—or attempting to do so with fire, firearm, or other dangerous weapon—when 1) the crime was committed because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin of any person, or 2) the crime was committed because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person and the crime affected interstate or foreign commerce or occurred within federal special maritime and territorial jurisdiction.

The law also provides funding and technical assistance to state, local, and tribal jurisdictions to help them to more effectively investigate, prosecute, and prevent hate crimes.

The law provides for a maximum 10–year prison term, unless death (or attempts to kill) results from the offense, or unless the offense includes kidnapping or attempted kidnapping, or aggravated sexual abuse or attempted aggravated sexual abuse. For offenses not resulting in death, there is a seven–year statute of limitations. For offenses resulting in death, there is no statute of limitations.

This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.

This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.

Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

1) This statute prohibits willful injury, intimidation, or interference, or attempt to do so, by force or threat of force of any person or class of persons because of their activity as:
  • A voter, or person qualifying to vote...;
  • a participant in any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by the United States;
  • an applicant for federal employment or an employee by the federal government;
  • a juror or prospective juror in federal court; and
  • a participant in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

2) Prohibits willful injury, intimidation, or interference or attempt to do so, by force or threat of force of any person because of race, color, religion, or national origin and because of his/her activity as:
  • A student or applicant for admission to any public school or public college;
  • a participant in any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by a state or local government;
  • an applicant for private or state employment, private or state employee; a member or applicant for membership in any labor organization or hiring hall; or an applicant for employment through any employment agency, labor organization or hiring hall;
  • a juror or prospective juror in state court;
  • a traveler or user of any facility of interstate commerce or common carrier; or
  • a patron of any public accommodation, including hotels, motels, restaurants, lunchrooms, bars, gas stations, theaters...or any other establishment which serves the public and which is principally engaged in selling food or beverages for consumption on the premises.

3) Prohibits interference by force or threat of force against any person because he/she is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or class of persons from participating or affording others the opportunity or protection to so participate, or lawfully aiding or encouraging other persons to participate in any of the benefits or activities listed in items (1) and (2), above without discrimination as to race, color, religion, or national origin.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life or may be sentenced to death.

Prohibits (1) intentional defacement, damage, or destruction of any religious real property, because of the religious, racial, or ethnic characteristics of that property, or (2) intentional obstruction by force or threat of force, or attempts to obstruct any person in the enjoyment of that person's free exercise of religious beliefs. If the intent of the crime is motivated for reasons of religious animosity, it must be proven that the religious real property has a sufficient connection with interstate or foreign commerce. However, if the intent of the crime is racially motivated, there is no requirement to satisfy the interstate or foreign commerce clause.

Punishment varies from one year imprisonment and a fine or both, and if bodily injury results to any person, including any public safety officer performing duties as a direct or proximate result of conduct prohibited by this section, and the violation is by means of fire or an explosive, a fine under this title or imprisonment of not more than forty years or both; or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined in accordance with this title and imprisonment for up to twenty years, or both, and if death results or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined in accordance with this title and imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

This statute prohibits (1) the use of force or threat of force or physical obstruction, to intentionally injure, intimidate or interfere with or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person or any class of persons from obtaining or providing reproductive health services; (2) the use of force or threat of force or physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate, or interfere with or attempt to injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship; or (3) intentionally damages or destroys the property of a facility, or attempts to do so, because such facility provides reproductive health services or intentionally damages or destroys the property of a place of religious worship. This statute does not apply to speech or expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. Non obstructive demonstrations are legal.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment for an offense involving exclusively a nonviolent physical obstruction, the fine shall be not more than $10,000 and the length of imprisonment shall be up to six months, or both, for the first offense: and the fine shall, notwithstanding section 3571, be up to $25,000 and the length of imprisonment shall be not more than 18 months, or both, for a subsequent offense; and if bodily injury results, the length of imprisonment shall be up to ten years, and if death results, it shall be for any term of years or for life.

Whoever (1) uses fire or an explosive to commit any felony which may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, or (2) carries an explosive during the commission of any felony which may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, including a felony which provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced to imprisonment for five years but not more than 15 years. In the case of a second or subsequent conviction under this subsection, such persons shall be sentenced to imprisonment for ten years but not more than 25 years.

This statute makes it unlawful for any individual(s), by the use of force or threatened use of force, to injure, intimidate, or interfere with (or attempt to injure, intimidate, or interfere with), any person's housing rights because of that person's race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin. Among those housing rights enumerated in the statute are:
  • The sale, purchase, or renting of a dwelling;
  • the occupation of a dwelling;
  • the financing of a dwelling;
  • contracting or negotiating for any of the rights enumerated above;
  • applying for or participating in any service, organization, or facility relating to the sale or rental of dwellings.

This statute also makes it unlawful by the use of force or threatened use of force, to injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person who is assisting an individual or class of persons in the exercise of their housing rights.

Punishment varies from a fine of up to $1,000 or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results, shall be fined up to $10,000 or imprisoned up to ten years, or both, and if death results, shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

This civil statute was a provision within the Crime Control Act of 1994 and makes it unlawful for any governmental authority, or agent thereof, or any person acting on behalf of a governmental authority, to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers or by officials or employees of any governmental agency with responsibility for the administration of juvenile justice or the incarceration of juveniles that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.



Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that a violation has occurred, the Attorney General, for or in the name of the United States, may in a civil action obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate the pattern or practice.

Types of misconduct covered include, among other things:
  • Excessive Force
  • Discriminatory Harassment
  • False Arrest
  • Coercive Sexual Conduct
  • Unlawful Stops, Searches, or Arrests

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)